Intravenous Droperidol or Olanzapine as an Adjunct to Midazolam for the Acutely Agitated Patient: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

A retrospective review of intramuscular olanzapine and parenteral benzodiazepine coadministration in the emergency department

Introduction

Acute agitation is a common presenting symptom in medical and mental health emergencies that may require pharmacologic intervention. There is a manufacturer recommendation against intramuscular coadministration of olanzapine with parenteral (intramuscular or intravenous) benzodiazepines despite a deficiency of high-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to contribute to available literature regarding intramuscular olanzapine and parenteral benzodiazepine use in acutely agitated patients in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective chart review of adult ED patients who received intramuscular olanzapine and a parenteral benzodiazepine within 2 hours. The composite primary endpoint evaluated the occurrence of cardiac or respiratory compromise within 2 hours of medication administration. Secondary endpoints mirrored the primary endpoint within 30 minutes and evaluated the occurrence of cardiac arrest or desaturation in the ED outside the 2-hour window.

Results

One hundred eleven patients were included in the analysis, 64 (57.7%) of whom had documented vitals or oxygen status within 2 hours of medication administration. The composite primary endpoint occurred in 8 patients (12.5%), with only 1 patient requiring intervention with intravenous fluids. The secondary composite endpoint occurred in 2 (9.5%) of 21 patients with documented vitals or oxygen status within 30 minutes of treatment, neither of which required intervention. There were no identified events of intubation or significant cardiac events.

Discussion

Until better evidence is available, this combination therapy should, at minimum, include appropriate patient monitoring. Future studies should investigate risk factors for serious adverse effects.

Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Medications for the Management of Acute Disturbance (Agitation and Other Escalating Behaviors): A Systematic Review of Prospective Interventional Studies

Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available management options include de-escalation techniques and rapid tranquilization, mostly via parenteral formulations of medication. While the intramuscular route has been extensively studied in a range of clinical settings, the same cannot be said for intravenous (IV); this is despite potential benefits, including rapid absorption and complete bioavailability. This systematic review analyzed existing evidence for effectiveness and safety of IV medication for management of acute disturbances. It followed a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO identification CRD42020216456) and is reported following the guidelines set by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible interventional studies up until May 30th, 2023. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly. Results showed mixed but positive results for the effectiveness of IV dexmedetomidine, lorazepam, droperidol, and olanzapine. Evidence was more limited for IV haloperidol, ketamine, midazolam, chlorpromazine, and valproate. There was no eligible data on the use of IV clonazepam, clonidine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, propranolol, ziprasidone, fluphenazine, carbamazepine, or promethazine. Most studies reported favorable adverse event profiles, though they are unlikely to have been sufficiently powered to pick up rare serious events. In most cases, evidence was of low or mixed quality, accentuating the need for further standardized, large-scale, multi-arm randomized controlled trials with homogeneous outcome measures. Overall, this review suggests that IV medications may offer an effective alternative parenteral route of administration in acute disturbance, particularly in general hospital settings.

Management of the Agitated Patient

The acutely agitated patient should be managed in a step-wise fashion, beginning with non-coercive de-escalation strategies and moving on to pharmacologic interventions and physical restraints as necessary. Face-to-face examination, monitoring, and documentation by the physician are essential. The emergency physician should be familiar with multiple pharmaceutical options, tailored to the individual patient. Use of ketamine, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics should be considered. Patient autonomy, safety, and medical well-being are paramount.

Risk Stratification of QTc Prolongation in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Antipsychotics for the Management of Delirium Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Patients experiencing significant agitation or perceptual disturbances related to delirium in an intensive care setting may benefit from short-term treatment with an antipsychotic medication. Some antipsychotic medications may prolong the QTc interval, which increases the risk of potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. In this targeted review, we describe the evidence regarding the relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation and practical methods for monitoring the QTc interval and mitigating arrhythmia risk.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to identify studies, published before February 2023, investigating the relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation or arrhythmias.

RESULTS

Most antipsychotic medications commonly used for the management of delirium symptoms (eg, intravenous haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine) cause a moderate degree of QTc prolongation. Among other antipsychotics, those most likely to cause QTc prolongation are iloperidone and ziprasidone, while aripiprazole and lurasidone appear to have minimal risk for QTc prolongation. Genetic vulnerabilities, female sex, older age, pre-existing cardiovascular disease, electrolyte abnormalities, and non-psychiatric medications also increase the risk of QTc prolongation. For individuals at risk of QTc prolongation, it is essential to measure the QTc interval accurately and consistently and consider medication adjustments if needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic medications are one of many risk factors for QTc prolongation. When managing agitation related to delirium, it is imperative to assess an individual patient's risk for QTc prolongation and to choose a medication and monitoring strategy commensurate to the risks. In intensive care settings, we recommend regular ECG monitoring, using a linear regression formula to correct for heart rate. If substantial QTc prolongation (eg, QTc > 500 msec) is present, a change in pharmacologic treatment can be considered, though a particular medication may still be warranted if the risks of discontinuation (eg, extreme agitation, removal of invasive monitoring devices) outweigh the risks of arrhythmias.

AIMS

This review aims to summarize the current literature on relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation and to make practical clinical recommendations towards the approach of antipsychotic medication use for the management of delirium-related agitation and perceptual disturbances in intensive care settings.

Comparison of Droperidol and Midazolam Versus Haloperidol and Lorazepam for Acute Agitation Management in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Acute agitation accounts for up to 2.6% of visits to the emergency department (ED). To date, a standard of care for the management of acute agitation has not been established. Few studies have evaluated antipsychotic and benzodiazepine combinations.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of combination therapy for acute agitation with intramuscular (IM) droperidol and midazolam (D+M) compared with IM haloperidol and lorazepam (H+L) in patients in the ED.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective medical record review of patients presenting to a large, academic ED with acute agitation from July 2020 through October 2021. The primary outcome was percentage of patients requiring additional agitation medication within 60 minutes of combination administration. Secondary outcomes included average time to repeat dose administration and average number of repeat doses required before ED discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 306 patients were included for analysis: 102 in the D+M group and 204 in the H+L group. Repeat dose within 60 minutes occurred in 7 (6.9%) and 28 (13.8%) patients in the D+M and H+L groups, respectively (P = 0.065). A total of 28.4% of D+M patients and 30.9% of H+L patients required any repeat dose during their ED visit. Time to repeat dose was 12 and 24 minutes in the D+M and H+L, respectively (P = 0.22). The adverse event rate was 2.9% in each group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

IM D+M resulted in a lower rate of repeat doses of acute agitation medication compared with IM H+L, though this was not statistically significant. Both therapies were safe, and the adverse event rate was low.

Management of paediatric acute severe behavioural disturbance in emergency departments across Australia: A PREDICT survey of senior medical staff

OBJECTIVE

Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in EDs. It poses a significant risk to the patient and those around them. Little is known about the epidemiology or most effective management in the paediatric population. The aim of the present study is to clarify the practice of senior emergency doctors in Australia when managing paediatric ASBD.

METHODS

The present study was a voluntary electronic questionnaire distributed to and undertaken by senior medical staff in EDs affiliated with the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) network. Respondents reported on exposure to and confidence in managing paediatric ASBD and their current practices.

RESULTS

A total of 227 (33%) clinicians completed the survey between February and May 2020. Most clinicians were caring for at least two young people with ASBD each week (72%), felt confident regarding the majority of components of management and referred to local clinical practice guidelines (69%). Agitation/sedation rating scales were seldom used (19%). There was a significant variation in self-reported management practices. The choice of whether to use medication at all, the medication chosen and route of administration all varied greatly. Respondents were more willing to provide parenteral medication to young people reported as having recreational drug intoxication (84%) than those with neurodevelopment disorders (65%) when the same degree of agitation was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Within Australia, there is considerable variation in paediatric ASBD practice, in particular regarding medication provision. Further prospective research is required to inform best clinical practice.

Retrospective evaluation of ketamine versus droperidol on time to restraint removal in agitated emergency department patients

PURPOSE

Acute agitation and violent behavior in the emergency department (ED) can lead to significant patient morbidity and contribute to the growing problem of workplace violence against health care providers. To our knowledge, there is no available literature directly comparing intramuscular ketamine to intramuscular droperidol in ED patients presenting with undifferentiated agitation. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness and safety of these agents for acute agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted at an urban, academic ED. The primary endpoint was time from the first dose of study medication to restraint removal. Safety endpoints included incidence of bradycardia (heart rate < 60 bpm), hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90% or need for respiratory support), and incidence of intubation for ongoing agitation or respiratory failure.

RESULTS

An initial 189 patients were screened, of which, 92 met inclusion criteria. The median time from initial drug administration to restraint removal was 49 min (IQR 30, 168) in the ketamine group and 43 min (IQR 30, 80) in the droperidol group (Median difference 6 min; 95% CI [-7, 26]). There was no significant difference in rates of bradycardia (3% vs 3%, 95% CI [-7%, 8%]), hypotension (0% vs 2%, 95% CI [-5%, 2%]), or hypoxia (7% vs 10%, 95% CI [-15%, 9%]) in the ketamine versus droperidol groups respectively. One patient in the ketamine group was intubated for ongoing agitation, and one patient in the droperidol group was intubated for respiratory failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular ketamine were associated with similar times from drug administration to restraint removal in patients presenting to the ED with undifferentiated agitation. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate IM droperidol and IM ketamine head-to-head as first line agents for acute agitation in the ED.

Pharmacological Emergency management of Agitation in Children and Young people: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of intraMuscular medication (PEAChY-M)

INTRODUCTION

Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of intramuscular olanzapine is more effective than intramuscular droperidol at successfully sedating young people with ASBD requiring intramuscular sedation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular droperidol. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was received from the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/69948/RCHM-2021). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621001238864.

Safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation in older adults in the emergency department

PURPOSE

To examine the safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines (BZD) as compared to antipsychotics for the management of acute agitation in older adults in the emergency department (ED).

BASIC PROCEDURES

Retrospective observational cohort study of 21 EDs across four states in the US, including adults ≥60 years old who received either BZD or antipsychotics for acute agitation in the ED and subsequently were admitted to the hospital. Safety was measured as presence of adverse events: respiratory depression, cardiovascular effects, extrapyramidal side effects, or a fall during hospitalization. Effectiveness was measured as indicators of treatment failure: need for additional medication, one-to-one observation, or physical restraints following initial medication administration. Proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and for efficacy and safety endpoints.

MAIN FINDINGS

A total of 684 patients were included (63.9% received a BZD and 36.1% an antipsychotic). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups (20.6% vs 14.6%, difference 6.0%, 95% CI -0.2% to 11.8%), but there was a higher intubation rate in the BZD group (2.7% vs 0.4%, difference 2.3%). There were more treatment failures in the antipsychotic group for the composite primary efficacy endpoint (94.3% vs 87.6%, difference 6.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 10.9%). This appears to have been driven by the need for 1:1 observation; sensitivity analysis excluding 1:1 observation in the composite outcome demonstrated no significant difference with a failure rate of 38.5% in the antipsychotic group and 35.2% in the benzodiazepine group.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

Overall there are high rates of treatment failure among agitated older adults receiving pharmacological treatment for agitation in the emergency department. The optimal selection of pharmacological treatment for agitation in older adults should be made considering patient-specific factors that could increase the risk of adverse effects or treatment failure.

Cost-Effectiveness of Midazolam Versus Haloperidol Versus Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Accident and Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

A multicenter randomized clinical trial in Hong Kong Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments concluded that intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is noninferior to haloperidol and midazolam, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the management of acutely agitated patients in A&E setting. Determining their comparative cost-effectiveness will further provide an economic perspective to inform the choice of sedative in this setting.

METHODS

This analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in Hong Kong A&E departments between December 2014 and September 2019. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 3 sedatives was conducted, from the A&E perspective and a within-trial time horizon, using a decision-analytic model. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, median total management costs associated with IM midazolam, haloperidol, and olanzapine were Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1958.9 (US dollar [USD] 251.1), HKD 2504.5 (USD 321.1), and HKD 2467.6 (USD 316.4), respectively. Agitation management labor cost was the main cost driver, whereas drug costs contributed the least. Midazolam dominated over haloperidol and olanzapine. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported that midazolam remains dominant > 95% of the time and revealed no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of IM olanzapine versus haloperidol (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 667.16; 95% confidence interval -770.89, 685.90).

CONCLUSIONS

IM midazolam is the dominant cost-effective treatment for the management of acute agitation in the A&E setting. IM olanzapine could be considered as an alternative to IM haloperidol given that there is no clear difference in cost-effectiveness, and their adverse effect profile should be considered when choosing between them.

Evaluating the impact of an emergency department protocol that guides management of methamphetamine-induced agitation and psychosis

Background

Methamphetamine is an addictive stimulant that may induce symptoms of agitation and psychosis. The estimated rate of methamphetamine use is 6.6 per 1000 people. Currently, no treatment guidelines exist to support the optimal management of patients presenting with methamphetamine-induced agitation. Emergency department (ED) providers may prescribe various benzodiazepines (BZDs) and antipsychotics (APs) as first-line agents to stabilize these agitated patients. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of a protocol to guide management of this condition.

Methods

This was a retrospective, pre- and poststudy conducted from July 2020 to March 2021 at a large academic medical center. A multidisciplinary protocol was designed to help manage methamphetamine-induced agitation in the ED. The primary outcome of the study was a reduction in the number of BZDs and APs used for the treatment of methamphetamine-induced agitation. This was measured by the incidence of overprescribing, defined as 3 or more APs or BZDs administered within 30 minutes. Secondary outcomes included the use of physical restraints, ED length of stay, and adverse events.

Results

We did not observe a significantly lower incidence of overprescribing, adverse events, or ED length of stay when comparing pre- and postprotocol groups. A subgroup analysis demonstrated that when protocol was followed, there was a statistically significant reduction in overprescribing (P = .001).

Discussion

We did not find any differences among our primary and secondary outcomes, which may be attributed to protocol nonadherence. Full compliance to the protocol may reduce the rate of overprescribing APs or BZDs in patients with methamphetamine-induced agitation.

Off-Label Use of Intravenous Olanzapine for Agitation After Neurologic Injury

Background: Small studies have described the off-label use of intravenous (IV) olanzapine for the management of acute agitation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IV olanzapine to manage acutely agitated patients with neurological injuries. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of IV olanzapine use in patients admitted to the neurotrauma and neurovascular intensive care units at a single academic center. The primary endpoint was the requirement of additional IV olanzapine, IV benzodiazepine, or IV haloperidol within 60 minutes from the time of first IV olanzapine dose. Secondary safety endpoints included QTc prolongation and respiratory depression. Results: Forty-six patients received IV olanzapine during the study period. One patient required an additional dose of IV olanzapine and two patients received benzodiazepine or antipsychotic agents within 60 minutes of IV olanzapine administration. One patient had a post-administration QTc level >500 ms. Two patients had an increased oxygen requirement, but none required intubation. Conclusion: IV olanzapine appears to be efficacious in reducing the need for sedatives and antipsychotics with low risk for QTc prolongation and respiratory depression in acutely agitated patients with neurological injuries.

Managing acute agitation and aggression in the world of drug shortages

Acute agitation and aggression create safety risks for both patients and staff, often leading to psychiatric emergencies. Quick and appropriate treatment is necessary to achieve safe and effective outcomes. Unfortunately, there are several factors that hinder timely interventions, such as medication shortages and delay in staff preparedness. Ultimately, the goal of managing acute agitation and aggression in the clinical setting is to de-escalate the situation and prevent harm to patients and staff. This article will explore useful interventions in realizing treatment goals for the management of agitation and aggression in adults while navigating limitations faced in practice.

Rapid Agitation Control With Ketamine in the Emergency Department: A Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that the use of intramuscular ketamine would result in a clinically relevant shorter time to target sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing the rapidity of onset, level of sedation, and adverse effect profile of ketamine compared to a combination of midazolam and haloperidol for behavioral control of emergency department patients with severe psychomotor agitation. We included patients with severe psychomotor agitation measured by a Richmond Agitation Score (RASS) ≥+3. Patients in the ketamine group were treated with a 5 mg/kg intramuscular injection. Patients in the midazolam and haloperidol group were treated with a single intramuscular injection of 5 mg midazolam and 5 mg haloperidol. The primary outcome was the time, in minutes, from study medication administration to adequate sedation, defined as RASS ≤-1. Secondary outcomes included the need for rescue medications and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Between June 30, 2018, and March 13, 2020, we screened 308 patients and enrolled 80. The median time to sedation was 14.7 minutes for midazolam and haloperidol versus 5.8 minutes for ketamine (difference 8.8 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 14.5]). Adjusted Cox proportional model analysis favored the ketamine arm (hazard ratio 2.43, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.12). Five (12.5%) patients in the ketamine arm and 2 (5.0%) patients in the midazolam and haloperidol arm experienced serious adverse events (difference 7.5% [95% CI -4.8% to 19.8%]).

CONCLUSION

In ED patients with severe agitation, intramuscular ketamine provided significantly shorter time to adequate sedation than a combination of intramuscular midazolam and haloperidol.

Evaluation of the ventilatory effects on human subjects in prolonged hip-flexed/head-down restraint position

BACKGROUND

The restraint chair is a tool used by law enforcement and correction personnel to control aggressive, agitated individuals. When initiating its use, subjects are often placed in a hip-flexed/head-down (HFHD) position to remove handcuffs. Usually, this period of time is less than two minutes but can become more prolonged in particularly agitated patients. Some have proposed this positioning limits ventilation and can result in asphyxia. The aim of this study is to evaluate if a prolonged HFHD restraint position causes significant ventilatory compromise.

METHODS

Subjects exercised on a stationary bicycle until they reached 85% of their predicted maximal heart rate. They were then handcuffed with their hands behind their back and placed into a HFHD seated position for five minutes. The primary outcome measurement was maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV). This was measured at baseline, after initial placement into the HFHD position, and after five minutes of being in the position while still maintaining the HFHD position. Baseline measurements were compared with final measurements for statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 15 subjects. Subjects had a mean MVV of 165.3 L/min at baseline, 157.8 L/min after initially being placed into the HFHD position, and a mean of 138.7 L/min after 5 min in the position. The mean baseline % predicted MVV was 115%; after 5 min in the HFHD position the mean was 96%. This 19% absolute difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In healthy seated male subjects with recent exertion, up to five minutes in a HFHD position results in a small decrease in MVV compared with baseline MVV levels. Even with this decrease, mean MVV levels were still 96% of predicted after five minutes. Though a measurable decrease was found, there was no clinically significant change that would support that this positioning would lead to asphyxia over a five-minute time period.

A retrospective study on the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine versus midazolam for pre-hospital management of excited delirium syndrome

Objective:

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine compared to midazolam for the pre-hospital management of excited delirium syndrome.

Methods:

A retrospective review of patients who were treated by ambulance crew for excited delirium syndrome from 2016 to 2019 was performed. The drug of choice was given per Fire Service Department’s paramedic protocol (intramuscular midazolam January 2016 to October 2018 and intramuscular olanzapine October 2018 to December 2019). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experienced at least one adverse event. The secondary outcome was the successful sedation rate.

Results:

A total of 201 patients were included in the study. Ninety-nine patients had pre-hospital midazolam and 102 received olanzapine. Thirty-one patients experienced adverse event after arrival to A&E, including a drop of Glasgow Coma Scale score to below 8 (90%), hypotension (6%), and airway obstruction (3%): 17 (17% patients; 1 airway obstruction and 16 Glasgow Coma Scale score below 8) in midazolam group and 14 (14% patients; 2 hypotension and 12 Glasgow Coma Scale score below 8) in olanzapine group (p = 0.41). Sixty-eight patients (69%) in midazolam group achieved successful sedation, compared with 79 (77%) in olanzapine group (p = 0.20). More adverse events were seen with midazolam than olanzapine in alcohol intoxication subgroup with statistical significance (12 vs 2, p = 0.03).

Conclusion:

Both midazolam and olanzapine can achieve a satisfactory success rate of sedation. More adverse events are associated with midazolam use in patients with acute alcohol intoxication, especially over-sedation and airway compromise. Olanzapine would be a safer choice in the pre-hospital setting where the resource is limited, and differentiation of underlying causes is not always possible.

A Prospective Study of Intramuscular Droperidol or Olanzapine for Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department: A Natural Experiment Owing to Drug Shortages

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intramuscular medications are commonly used to treat agitation in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study is to compare intramuscular droperidol and olanzapine for treating agitation.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of ED patients receiving intramuscular droperidol or olanzapine for acute agitation. The treating physician determined the medication and dose; however, over time drug shortages made either olanzapine (July to September 2019) or droperidol (November 2019 to March 2020) unavailable, creating a natural experiment. The primary outcome was time to adequate sedation, assessed by the Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS), defined as time to AMSS score less than or equal to 0.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,257 patients (median age 42 years; 73% men); 538 received droperidol (median dose 5 mg) and 719 received olanzapine (median dose 10 mg). The majority of patients (1,086; 86%) had agitation owing to alcohol intoxication. Time to adequate sedation was 16 minutes (interquartile range 10 to 30 minutes) for droperidol and 17.5 minutes (interquartile range 10 to 30 minutes) for olanzapine (absolute difference -0.7 minutes; 95% confidence interval -2.1 to 0.5 minutes). Adjusted Cox proportional hazard model analysis revealed no difference between groups in time to sedation (hazard ratio for adequate sedation for droperidol compared with olanzapine 1.12; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.25). Patients receiving olanzapine were more likely to receive additional medications for sedation (droperidol 17%; olanzapine 24%; absolute difference -8% [95% confidence interval -12% to -3%]). We observed no difference between drugs regarding adverse effects except for extrapyramidal adverse effects, which were more common with droperidol (n=6; 1%) than olanzapine (n=1; 0.1%).

CONCLUSION

We found no difference in time to adequate sedation between intramuscular droperidol and olanzapine.

Randomized Double-blind Trial of Intramuscular Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Lorazepam for Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The optimal agent to treat acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) has not been determined. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular droperidol, ziprasidone, and lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind trial of ED patients with acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation. The study was conducted under exception from informed consent (21 CFR 50.24) from July 2004 to March 2005. Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of droperidol, 10 mg of ziprasidone, 20 mg of ziprasidone, or 2 mg of lorazepam intramuscularly. We recorded Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS) scores, nasal end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂ ), and pulse oximetry (SpO₂ ) at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes as well as QTc durations and dysrhythmias. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO₂ consistent with respiratory depression or SpO₂  < 90%. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated (AMSS ≤ 0) at 15 minutes.

RESULTS

We enrolled 115 patients. Baseline AMSS scores were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, adequate sedation at 15 minutes, droperidol administration was effective in 16 of 25 (64%) patients, compared to seven of 28 (25%) for 10 mg of ziprasidone, 11 of 31 (35%) for 20 mg of ziprasidone, and nine of 31 (29%) for lorazepam. Pairwise comparisons revealed that droperidol was more effective that the other medications, with 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3% to 54%) more compared to 20 mg of ziprasidone and 33% (95% CI = 8% to 58%) more compared to lorazepam. There was no significant difference between groups in need of additional rescue sedation. Numerically, respiratory depression was lower with droperidol (3/25 [12%]) compared to 10 mg of ziprasidone (10/28 [36%]), 20 mg of ziprasidone (12/31 [39%]), or lorazepam (15/31 [48%]). One patient receiving 20 mg of ziprasidone required intubation to manage an acute subdural hematoma. No patients had ventricular dysrhythmias. QTc durations were similar in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol was more effective than lorazepam or either dose of ziprasidone for the treatment of acute agitation in the ED and caused fewer episodes of respiratory depression.

Intramuscular midazolam, olanzapine, or haloperidol for the management of acute agitation: A multi-centre, double-blind, randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The safety and effectiveness of intramuscular olanzapine or haloperidol compared to midazolam as the initial pharmacological treatment for acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs) has not been evaluated.

METHODS

A pragmatic, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to September 2019, in six Hong Kong EDs. Patients (aged 18-75 years) with undifferentiated acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation were randomised to 5 mg intramuscular midazolam (n = 56), olanzapine (n = 54), or haloperidol (n = 57). Primary outcomes were time to adequate sedation and proportion of patients who achieved adequate sedation at each follow-up interval. Sedation levels were measured on a 6-level validated scale (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380118).

FINDINGS

Of 206 patients randomised, 167 (mean age, 42 years; 98 [58·7%] male) were analysed. Median time to sedation for IM midazolam, olanzapine, and haloperidol was 8·5 (IQR 8·0), 11·5 (IQR 30·0), and 23·0 (IQR 21·0) min, respectively. At 60 min, similar proportions of patients were adequately sedated (98%, 87%, and 97%). There were statistically significant differences for time to sedation with midazolam compared to olanzapine (p = 0·03) and haloperidol (p = 0·002). Adverse event rates were similar across the three arms. Dystonia (n = 1) and cardiac arrest (n = 1) were reported in the haloperidol group.

INTERPRETATION

Midazolam resulted in faster sedation in patients with undifferentiated agitation in the emergency setting compared to olanzapine and haloperidol. Midazolam and olanzapine are preferred over haloperidol's slower time to sedation and potential for cardiovascular and extrapyramidal side effects.

FUNDING

Research Grants Council, Hong Kong.

Safety of Intravenous Olanzapine Administration at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Although approved by the Food and Drug Administration for intramuscular administration only, analyses have described the administration of intravenous push (IVP) olanzapine, particularly for acute agitation. The safety and efficacy of IVP olanzapine has mostly been limited to emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of IVP olanzapine administration in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted between July 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Adult patients who received at least 1 dose of IVP olanzapine were included in the analysis. Safety endpoints analyzed included the following adverse drug events (ADEs): hypotension, bradycardia, cardiac arrhythmias, extrapyramidal adverse effects, and respiratory depressive events. Data on IV site reactions, including phlebitis and infiltration, were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 1,247 IVP administrations of olanzapine were identified across 252 patients. Two or more doses were received by 159 patients (63.1%). Most administrations (66%) took place in intensive care units, with 33% administered on general medicine wards. Overall, 104 administrations (8.3%) were associated with at least 1 ADE. Hypotension and bradycardia occurred in 62 (5.2%) and 16 (1.3%) administrations, respectively. Phlebitis occurred with 8 administrations (1.4%). All other adverse events were rare (<1%).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Hypotension, the most commonly noted ADE, occurred more frequently than in previous studies. IVP olanzapine appears to be a safe route of administration in hospitalized patients, including those receiving multiple doses. Further studies are required to evaluate the effect of IV olanzapine on hemodynamics.

Safety and efficacy of pharmacologic agents used for rapid tranquilization of emergency department patients with acute agitation or excited delirium

Introduction: Management of patients with acute agitation or aggressive behavior can pose a significant challenge to health-care providers in emergency departments. Areas covered: This article provides a comprehensive review of the pharmacologic properties, efficacy, and safety profiles of select intramuscular (IM) sedative agents (i.e., antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and ketamine) for rapid tranquilization. Expert opinion: Using antipsychotics and benzodiazepines - whether a single agent or combined - will have similar efficacy in producing sedation. But there are differences in the time to sedation depending on which agent is used. Based upon the available studies, droperidol (5-10 mg IM) and midazolam (5-10 mg IM) have the fastest onset of sedation when either is used as a single agent. When combination therapy is used, using midazolam with an antipsychotic agent, instead of lorazepam, may result in faster sedative effect. QT prolongation and torsades de pointes are uncommon adverse drug effects of antipsychotic administration. Ketamine is often reserved as a second-line agent when antipsychotics and benzodiazepines fail to produce the desired tranquilization. However, ketamine (5 mg/kg IM) is more frequently associated with airway compromise requiring endotracheal intubation. A low-dose of ketamine (2 mg/kg IM) may reduce the risk of airway compromise while providing adequate sedation.

A Retrospective Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Olanzapine Versus Intravenous Haloperidol for Agitation in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous (IV) olanzapine could be an alternative to first-generation antipsychotics for the management of agitation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We compared the effectiveness and safety of IV olanzapine to IV haloperidol for agitation management in adult patients in the ICU at a tertiary academic medical center.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of < +1 within 4 hours of IV olanzapine or IV haloperidol administration. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required rescue medications for agitation within 4 hours of initial IV olanzapine or IV haloperidol administration, incidence of adverse events and ICU length of stay.

RESULTS

In the 192 patient analytic cohort, there was no difference in the proportion of patients who achieved a RASS score of < +1 within 4 hours of receiving IV olanzapine or IV haloperidol (49% vs. 42%, p = 0.31). Patients in the IV haloperidol group were more likely to receive rescue medications (28% vs 55%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of respiratory events or hypotension between IV olanzapine and IV haloperidol. Patients in the IV olanzapine group experienced more bradycardia (11% vs. 3%, p = 0.04) and somnolence (9% vs. 1%, p = 0.02) compared to the IV haloperidol group. Patients in the IV olanzapine group had a longer median ICU length of stay (7.5 days vs. 5 days, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective cohort study, there was no difference in the effectiveness of IV olanzapine compared to IV haloperidol for the management of agitation. IV olanzapine was associated with an increased incidence of bradycardia and somnolence.

Recognition and management of agitation in acute mental health services: a qualitative evaluation of staff perceptions

BACKGROUND

Agitation among patients is a common and distressing behaviour across a variety of health care settings, particularly inpatient mental health. Unless recognised early and effectively managed it can lead to aggression and personal injury. The aim of this paper is to explore the experiences of mental health nurses in recognising and managing agitation in an inpatient mental health setting and the alignment of these experiences with best practice and person-centred care.

METHODS

This study used a descriptive qualitative methodology. Semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with 20 nurses working in a mental health unit in 2018. Nursing staff described their experiences of assessing and managing agitation. Descriptive and Thematic Analysis were undertaken of the transcribed focus group dialogue.

RESULTS

Nurses combined their clinical knowledge, assessment protocols and training with information from patients to make an individualised assessment of agitation. Nurses also adopted an individualised approach to management by engaging patients in decisions about their care. In keeping with best practice recommendations, de-escalation strategies were the first choice option for management, though nurses also described using both coercive restraint and medication under certain circumstances. From the perspective of patient-centred care, the care provided aligned with elements of person-centred care nursing care.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that clinical mental health nurses assess and manage agitation, with certain exceptions, in line with best practice and a person-centred care nursing framework.

Acute behavioural disturbance: a physical emergency psychiatrists need to understand

The phenomenon of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) (also known as acute behavioural disorder or excited delirium) is an underrecognised and potentially life-threatening syndrome, and an emergency in psychiatric settings. Causes are discussed and the pathophysiology explained. The challenges faced by practitioners are highlighted, including how ‘standard’ control and restraint can exacerbate symptoms. Initial treatment strategies are suggested.

Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine and droperidol for chemical restraint for non-consenting adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) is emergency drug management for acute behavioural disturbances in people with mental illness, provided with the aim of rapid calming and de-escalating potentially dangerous situations.

AIMS

To describe a systematic review of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting on short-term safety and effectiveness of drugs used for CR, administered to non-consenting adults with mental health conditions, who require emergency management of acute behavioural disturbances. A meta-analysis was conducted of those RCTs with comparable interventions, outcome measures and measurement timeframes.

METHOD

Academic databases were searched for RCTs published between 1 January 1996 and 20th April 2020. Relevant RCTs were critically appraised using the 13-item JBI checklist. All RCTs were described, and step-wise filters were applied to identify studies suitable for meta-analysis. For these, forest and funnel plots were constructed, and Q and I² statistics guided interpretation of pooled findings, tested using MedCalc Version 19.1.

RESULTS

Of 23 relevant RCTs, 18 (78.2% total) had excellent methodological quality scores (at least 90%). Eight RCTs were potentially relevant for meta-analysis (six of excellent quality), reporting 20 drug arms in total. Adverse events for 6-36% patients were reported in all 20 drug arms. Four drug arms from two homogenous studies of N = 697 people were meta-analysed. These RCTs tested two antipsychotic drugs (droperidol, olanzapine) delivered intravenously in either 5 mgs or 10 mg doses, with outcomes of time to calm, percentage calm within five or 10 min, and adverse events. There were no significant differences between drug arms for either measure of calm. However, 5 mg olanzapine incurred significantly lower risk of adverse events than 10 mg olanzapine (OR 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.8)), although no dose differences were found for droperidol.

CONCLUSION

5 mg intravenous olanzapine is recommended for quick, safe emergency management of people with acute behavioural disturbances associated with mental illness.

Reintegrating droperidol into emergency medicine practice

Purpose

After a long period of low utilization, droperidol has become easier to obtain in the US market. This comprehensive review discusses the safety, indications, clinical efficacy, and dosing of droperidol for use in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Summary

In 2001 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a boxed warning in the labeling of droperidol after reports of QT interval prolongation associated with droperidol use. Since that time, it has been difficult to access droperidol in the United States; as a result, many practicing clinicians lack experience in its clinical use. Multiple studies have been conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of droperidol use in ED patients. Results consistently show the safety of droperidol and its clinical efficacy when used as an analgesic, antiemetic, and sedative. Now that droperidol is more widely available for use in the US market, pharmacists and prescribers need to reliably translate safety and efficacy data compiled since 2001 to help ensure appropriate and effective use of the medication.

Conclusion

Droperidol is an effective and safe option for the treatment of acute agitation, migraine, nausea, and pain for patients in the ED setting. Healthcare professionals can adopt droperidol for use in clinical practice, and they should become familiar with how to dose and monitor droperidol for safe and effective use.

International research into 22 years of use of chemical restraint: An evidence overview

BACKGROUND

Chemical restraint (CR) (also known as rapid tranquilisation) is the forced (non-consenting) administration of medications to manage uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence in people who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others. Our population of interest was adults with mental health disorders (with/without substance abuse). There has been a growing international movement over the past 22 years towards reducing/eliminating restrictive practices such as CR. It is appropriate to summarise the research that has been published over this time, identify trends and gaps in knowledge, and highlight areas for new research to inform practice.

AIMS

To undertake a comprehensive systematic search to identify, and describe, the volume and nature of primary international research into CR published since 1995.

METHODS

This paper reports the processes and overall findings of a systematic search for all available primary research on CR published between 1 January 1996 and 31 July 2018. It describes the current evidence base by hierarchy of evidence, country (ies) producing the research, CR definitions, study purpose, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

This review identified 311 relevant primary studies (21 RCTs; 46 non-controlled experimental or prospective observational studies; 77 cross-sectional studies; 69 retrospective studies; 67 opinion pieces, position or policy statements; and 31 qualitative studies). The USA, UK, and Australia contributed over half the research, whilst cross-country collaborations comprised 6% of it. The most common research settings comprised acute psychiatric wards (23.3%), general psychiatric wards (21.6%), and general hospital emergency departments (19.0%).

DISCUSSION

A key lesson learnt whilst compiling this database of research into CR was to ensure that all papers described non-consenting administration of medications to manage adults with uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violence. There were tensions in the literature between using effective CR without producing adverse events, and how to decide when CR was needed (compared with choosing non-chemical intervention for behavioural emergencies), respecting patients' dignity whilst safeguarding their safety, and preserving safe workplaces for staff, and care environments for other patients. The range of outcome measures suggests opportunities to standardise future research.

The effectiveness of chemical restraint in managing acute agitation and aggression: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

One approach to manage people with behaviours of concern including agitated or aggressive behaviours in health care settings is through the use of fast-acting medication, called chemical restraint. Such management often needs to be delivered in crisis situations to patients who are at risk of harm to themselves or others. This paper summarizes the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of chemical restraint from 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3788 patients. The RCTs were of moderate to high quality and were conducted in pre-hospital, hospital emergency department, or ward settings. Drugs used in chemical restraint included olanzapine, haloperidol, droperidol, risperidol, flunitrazepam, midazolam, promethazine, ziprasidone, sodium valproate, or lorazepam. There was limited comparability between studies in drug choice, combination, dose, method of administration (oral, intramuscular, or intravenous drip), or timing of repeat administrations. There were 31 outcome measures, which were inconsistently reported. They included subjective measures of behaviours, direct measures of treatment effect (time to calm; time to sleep), indirect measures of agitation (staff or patient injuries, duration of agitative or aggressive episodes, subsequent violent episodes), and adverse events. The most common were time to calm and adverse events. There was little clarity about the superiority of any chemical method of managing behaviours of concern exhibited by patients in Emergency Departments or acute mental health settings. Not only is more targeted research essential, but best practice recommendations for such situations requires integrating expert input into the current evidence base.

First line in psychiatric emergency: pre-hospital emergency protocol for mental disorders in Iran

INTRODUCTION

This article is a report of designing a rapid and effective guide for paramedics who take care of patients in a pre-hospital setting to answer developing demands.

METHODS

The relevant literature was reviewed, and the topics were extracted. Then, the extracted items were discussed in an expert panel. Finally, items were discussed in a meeting including emergency technicians and emergency technical assistants to identify implementation problems.

RESULTS

Important topics for managing psychiatric patients were categorized at three levels: 1) Patient safety and security issues, 2) Patient status assessment and diagnosis, and 3) Patient management (medical, behavioral management, and referral to a treatment center).

DISCUSSION

This protocol can be a solution to improve emergency technician training. Such summarized protocols can be used for rapid review immediately before exposing a patient with an acute psychiatric condition. Due to specific cultural and different access to medicines in Iran, some issues are different.

The Use, Safety, and Efficacy of Olanzapine in a Level I Pediatric Trauma Center Emergency Department Over a 10-Year Period

OBJECTIVES

Olanzapine is a second-generation antipsychotic increasingly used in emergency medicine for many indications. Literature on its use in children is sparse. Our objectives were to describe the use, safety, and efficacy of olanzapine in pediatric emergency patients.

METHODS

A structured chart review was performed of patients 18 years old or younger receiving olanzapine from 2007 to 2016 in the emergency department of a pediatric level I trauma center.

RESULTS

A total of 285 children received olanzapine. Mean age was 16.4 years (range, 9-18 years); 121 were male (42.8%). Primary indications for olanzapine included agitation (n = 166, 58.3%), headache (n = 58, 20.4%), nausea/vomiting/abdominal pain (n = 37, 12.5%), unspecified pain (n = 20, 7%), and other (n = 4, 1.4%). Route of olanzapine administration was intramuscular (n = 160, 56%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 2.5-20), intravenous (n = 101, 36%; median dose, 5 mg; range, 1.25-5), and oral (n = 24, 8%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 5-10). For agitated patients, 28 (17%) received another sedative within 1 hour. For headache patients, 5 (8.6%) received another analgesic. For gastrointestinal complaints, 5 patients (13.5%) received another analgesic/antiemetic. Adverse respiratory events were hypoxia (pulse oximetry reading, in percentage, <92%; n = 7, 2.4%), supplemental oxygen placement (n = 9, 3.2%), and intubation (n = 2, 0.7%). No patient died or had a dysrhythmia. One patient experienced dystonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine seems safe when used for a variety of conditions in pediatric emergency patients. It may be effective for acute agitation, primary headache, and gastrointestinal complaints.

Treatment Options for Acute Agitation in Psychiatric Patients: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence

Acute agitation is a common presenting symptom in the emergency ward and is also dealt with on a routine basis in psychiatry. Usually a symptom of an underlying mental illness, it is considered urgent and immediate treatment is indicated. The practice of treating agitation on an acute care basis is also referred to as rapid tranquilization. A variety of psychotropic drugs and combinations thereof can be used. The decision is usually made based on availability and the clinician's experience, with the typical antipsychotic haloperidol (alone or in combination with antihistaminergic and anticholinergic drugs such as promethazine), the benzodiazepines lorazepam, diazepam and midazolam as well as a variety of atypical antipsychotics being used for this purpose. Haloperidol is associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (which can be controlled by co-administration of promethazine) and may control agitation without inducing sedation, while benzodiazepines have a more pronounced sedating activity. The atypical antipsychotics aripiprazole and ziprasidone are better tolerated, while olanzapine is also a powerful sedative. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of different treatment options have been conducted but they are extremely heterogenous and most have numerous methodological flaws, leading to a poor overall quality of evidence upon which guidelines for the appropriate treatment could be based. The combination of haloperidol and promethazine, which combines the sedative properties of the antihistamine with the more selective calming action of haloperidol (with a reduced risk of extrapyramidal effects compared to haloperidol alone because of the anticholinergic properties of promethazine) may be the best choice based on empirical evidence.

Risk Factors for Sedation-related Events During Acute Agitation Management in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to describe the incidence, nature, and risk factors for adverse events (AEs) among patients who received parenteral sedation for acute agitation in an emergency department (ED) setting.

METHODS

We undertook a prospective observational study and a clinical trial of parenteral sedation for the management of acute agitation. We included agitated adult patients who required parenteral sedation from 2014 to 2017 in 12 Australian EDs, excluding those with incomplete information or aged under 18 years. The primary outcome was the number of patients who experienced at least one AE. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 904 patients were included in the analyses (62.3% male; median age = 34 years, range = 18 to 95 years). Of these, 144 (15.9%) patients experienced at least one AE. The most common AEs were oxygen desaturation (7.4%), airway obstruction (3.6%), bradycardia (1.9%), hypotension (1.7%), and prolonged QTc interval (1.3%). No deaths or serious AEs were reported. The following factors had an increased adjusted odds ratio (OR) for experiencing an AE: age 65 years and older (OR = 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 7.2), more than one type of parenteral sedation administered within 60 minutes (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4 to 3.1), and alcohol intoxication (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.2 to 2.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation-related AEs are common, especially respiratory events. Elderly patients, sedation with multiple sedatives within 60 minutes, and alcohol intoxication increased the risk.

Prescription practices in the treatment of agitation in newly hospitalized Chinese schizophrenia patients: data from a non-interventional naturalistic study

BACKGROUND

Data on the pharmacological management of acute agitation in schizophrenia are scarce. The aim of this study is to investigate the prescription practices in the treatment of agitation in Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

We conducted a large, multicenter, observational study in 14 psychiatry hospitals in China. Newly hospitalized schizophrenia patients with the PANSS-EC total score ≥ 14 and a value ≥4 on at least one of its five items were included in the study. Their drug treatments of the first 2 weeks in hospital were recorded by the researchers.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and 53 patients enrolled in and 847 (99.30%) completed the study. All participants were prescribed antipsychotics, 40 (4.72%) were prescribed benzodiazepine in conjunction with antipsychotics and 81 were treated with modified electric convulsive therapy (MECT). Four hundred and 12 (48.64%) patients were prescribed only one antipsychotic, in the order of olanzapine (120 patients, 29.13%), followed by risperidone (101 patients, 24.51%) and clozapine (41 patients, 9.95%). About 435 (51.36%) participants received antipsychotic polypharmacy, mostly haloperidol + risperidone (23.45%), haloperidol+ olanzapine (17.01%), olanzapine+ ziprasidone (5.30%), haloperidol + clozapine (4.37%) and haloperidol + quetiapine (3.90%). Binary logistic regression analysis suggests that a high BARS score (OR 2.091, 95%CI 1.140-3.124), severe agitation (OR 1.846, 95%CL 1.266-2.693), unemployment or retirement (OR 1.614, 95%CL 1.189-2.190) and aggressiveness on baseline (OR 1.469, 95%CL 1.032-2.091) were related to an increased antipsychotic polypharmacy odds. Male sex (OR 0.592, 95%CL 0.436-0.803) and schizophrenia in older persons (age ≥ 55 years, OR 0.466, 95%CL 0.240-0.902) were less likely to be associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates that monotherapy and polypharmacy display equally common patterns of antipsychotic usage in managing agitation associated with schizophrenia in China. The extent and behavioral activities of agitation and several other factors were associated with polypharmacy.

Delirium and Dementia

Approximately 35% to 37% of older emergency department (ED) patients will have delirium or dementia, which can negatively affect safe and appropriate clinical care. This article describes the epidemiology of delirium and dementia in the ED and how it affects clinical care and patient outcomes. Screening for delirium and dementia in the context of the busy ED environment, as well as their diagnostic evaluation and management, is discussed.

Brazilian guidelines for the management of psychomotor agitation. Part 2. Pharmacological approach

Objective:

To present the essential guidelines for pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.

Methods:

This is a systematic review of articles retrieved from the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SciELO databases published from 1997 to 2017. Other relevant articles in the literature were also used to develop these guidelines. The search strategy used structured questions formulated using the PICO model, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Brazilian Medical Association. Recommendations were summarized according to their level of evidence, which was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine system and critical appraisal tools.

Results:

Of 5,362 articles retrieved, 1,731 abstracts were selected for further reading. The final sample included 74 articles that met all inclusion criteria. The evidence shows that pharmacologic treatment is indicated only after non-pharmacologic approaches have failed. The cause of the agitation, side effects of the medications, and contraindications must guide the medication choice. The oral route should be preferred for drug administration; IV administration must be avoided. All subjects must be monitored before and after medication administration.

Conclusion:

If non-pharmacological strategies fail, medications are needed to control agitation and violent behavior. Once medicated, the patient should be monitored until a tranquil state is possible without excessive sedation.

Systematic review registry number:

CRD42017054440.

Intravenous Olanzapine for the Management of Agitation: Review of the Literature

Objective: The purpose of this review is to summarize the current evidence of the off-label use of intravenous (IV) olanzapine and discuss its risks versus benefits for the management of agitation. Data Sources: A literature search was conducted to gather relevant data regarding IV use of olanzapine for the management of acute agitation. PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and IPA were searched using the keywords and MESH terms: olanzapine, intravenous, IV, off-label, and agitation. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All case reports, and retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of IV olanzapine administration for agitation from January 2004 to December 2018 were analyzed. Data Synthesis: Doses from 2.5 to 10 mg given as an IV bolus (maximum dose of 30 mg/d) have been administered. Rescue medications such as droperidol or parenteral benzodiazepines are sometimes coadministered to assist with achieving adequate sedation. Prospective studies demonstrate efficacy similar to droperidol in achieving adequate sedation within 10 minutes and similar time to onset of sedation. Rates of respiratory depression and airway obstruction are low and similar to that of comparative agents, including intramuscular olanzapine. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This review evaluated the off-label use of IV olanzapine to manage agitation based on case reports, and retrospective and prospective data. Conclusions: The use of IV olanzapine remains controversial in the absence of clear evidence evaluating safety and efficacy. Future studies are warranted comparing IV olanzapine with more commonly utilized and Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment modalities for acute agitation in the emergency department and other settings.

Rescue Sedation When Treating Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department With Intramuscular Antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Rapid treatment of agitation in the emergency department (ED) is critical to avoid injury to patients and providers. Treatment with intramuscular antipsychotics is often utilized, but there is a paucity of comparative effectiveness evidence available.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness of droperidol, olanzapine, and haloperidol for treating agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients who received intramuscular medication to treat agitation. Patients were classified based on the initial antipsychotic they received. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of additional sedation administered (rescue medication) within 1 h. Secondary outcomes included rescue sedation for the entire encounter and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 15,918 patients included (median age 37 years, 75% male). Rescue rates at 1 h were: 547/4947 for droperidol (11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10-12%), 988/8825 olanzapine (11%, 95% CI 10-12%), and 390/2146 for haloperidol (18%, 95% CI 17-20%). Rescue rates for the entire ED encounter were: 832/4947 for droperidol (17%, 95% CI 16-18%), 1665/8825 for olanzapine (19%, 95% CI 18-20%), and 560/2146 for haloperidol (26%, 95% CI 24-28%). Adverse events were uncommon: intubation (49, 0.3%), akathisia (7, 0.04%), dystonia (5, 0.03%), respiratory arrest (1, 0.006%), and torsades de pointes (0), with no significant differences between drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine and droperidol lead to lower rates of rescue sedation at 1 h and overall, compared with haloperidol. There were no significant differences in major adverse events.

An open-label randomized trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus oral clonidine for symptomatic treatment of opioid withdrawal in the emergency department

Background: Patients with opioid withdrawal often present to the Emergency Department (ED), but many EDs do not have the infrastructure in place to initiate treatment with opioid agonists (methadone or buprenorphine). Therefore, ED management often entails symptomatic control. The purpose of this study was to compare olanzapine to clonidine for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 10 mg of IM olanzapine to 0.3 mg of oral clonidine for symptoms of opioid withdrawal. Adult (18 years and older) ED patients reporting a history of opioid use and symptoms consistent with withdrawal were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had already received treatment during the ED encounter, were pregnant, incarcerated, or unable to provide consent. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive olanzapine or clonidine for their initial treatment. A baseline Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score was calculated. After 30 min, the patient could receive any additional treatment at the ED physician's discretion. The primary outcome was need for additional medication (rescue) within 1 h of study medication administration. Secondary outcomes included change in COWS score and adverse reactions. Results: We enrolled 63 patients (33 olanzapine, 30 clonidine). Demographic characteristics were similar for both groups (median age 45, range 21-67, 54% male) as well as baseline COWS score (median score 11). The median time since last opiate use was 48 h for both groups (range 4-116). Rescue was given within 1 h for olanzapine for 9 (27%) patients and for clonidine in 19 (63%) patients (difference 36%, 95% CI 13-59%). Decrease in COWS score at 1 h was 8.3 for olanzapine and 5.1 for clonidine (difference 3.2, 95% CI 0.3-6). Adverse events were uncommon: akathisia (1, olanzapine), hypotension (2, clonidine), respiratory depression (0). Conclusions: Treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms with 10 mg of IM olanzapine results in a lower incidence of rescue medication administration and improved symptoms (COWS score) compared to 0.3 mg of oral clonidine.

Tolerability of Midazolam to treat acute agitation in elderly demented patients: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Behavioural disorders are difficult to manage in elderly demented patients because of the lack of appropriate drugs or difficulties surrounding the route of administration. The tolerability of Midazolam is well described in the emergency management of agitation for young patients, when administered intramuscularly or intravenously. However, very little data are available on the use of oral Midazolam for this indication and in the elderly population.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted, and studies were included if involving adults, receiving Midazolam, alone or in combination, whatever the route, dosage or indication and if they reported adverse events related to the use of Midazolam.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty-one articles were included. Eleven different adverse events were identified from the studies. Hypotension and desaturation were the two most frequent adverse events reported. Adverse reactions appear to be more common in older patients but also when Midazolam was used in combination with other drugs. The frequency of these adverse effects was lower than those reported for neuroleptic drugs.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The oral route appears to be appropriate to provide a rapid and well-tolerated response. Further studies will be needed to confirm the good tolerance of oral Midazolam in the management of acute agitation in elderly demented patients.

Intravenous Olanzapine in a Critically Ill Patient: An Evolving Route of Administration

Purpose: The purpose of the article is to describe the successful use of parenteral olanzapine intravenously (IV) in a critically ill patient with severe agitated delirium. Summary: A 70-year-old man was admitted to the medical intensive care unit requiring plasmapheresis with platelet counts consistently below 20 000/µL secondary to thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). The patient had experienced agitated delirium requiring treatment, which was complicated by electrocardiogram (EKG) findings of a prolonged QTc interval. The antipsychotics the patient was receiving were believed to be responsible and, as such, the team desired an option that would have a lesser chance of worsening QTc (baseline-corrected QT) interval. Olanzapine was chosen and given IV versus the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved parenteral route of intramuscular (IM) due to concern of bleeding. The patient's delirious state responded to treatment to varying degrees and showed no increase in EKG abnormalities. To our knowledge, there is a paucity of published literature regarding this route of administration. Conclusion: Intramuscular olanzapine used IV may be a safe and effective option for the treatment of acutely agitated, delirious, critically ill patient.

Management of a complex patient - intravenous olanzapine use

OBJECTIVE:

This case report aims to highlight the challenges faced by mental health clinicians in managing complex medical and psychiatric presentation, with a particular interest in intravenous (IV) olanzapine use outside the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit setting.

CONCLUSION:

There is no current prescribing guideline regarding the use of IV olanzapine for acute agitation associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Most of the literature available regarding the use of IV olanzapine has originated from studies performed in the ED setting, with the majority of studies reporting a favourable efficacy and safety profile for IV olanzapine. Further research on the utilization of IV olanzapine in the general medical ward is required. Until more data is available, use of IV olanzapine in the acute arousal setting on a general medical ward remains off-label.

Rapid agitation control with ketamine in the emergency department (RACKED): a randomized controlled trial protocol

Background

The rapid control of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with psychomotor agitation and violent behavior is paramount for the safety of patients and ED staff. The use of intramuscular (IM) ketamine in the pre-hospital and ED settings has demonstrated promising preliminary results to provide rapid and safe behavioral control. A prospective, randomized controlled trial is required to measure the potential superiority of IM ketamine compared to current standard care (IM benzodiazepines plus antipsychotics).

Methods

This will be a parallel, prospective, randomized, controlled trial of 5 mg/kg IM ketamine compared to a combination of 5 mg IM midazolam and 5 mg IM haloperidol. The study will enroll approximately 184 patients, randomized equally to two study arms. There will be one study visit during which study medication will be administered and assessments will be completed. A follow-up safety visit will occur on day 3. The primary objective of this study is to compare IM ketamine to a combination of IM midazolam and haloperidol with regards to the time required for adequate behavioral control, in minutes, in patients presenting to the ED with psychomotor agitation and violent behavior, as measured by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS).

Discussion

We present a novel study to determine whether ketamine is a rapid and safe option, compared to a combination of midazolam and haloperidol for the sedation of patients presenting to the ED with psychomotor agitation and violent behavior. To our knowledge, this study is the first randomized controlled trial to compare ketamine to current standard care for this indication. We have attempted to address numerous logistical issues with the design of this study including a waiver of consent, ensuring adequate blinding of outcome assessors, patient enrolment, and data monitoring.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03375671. Registered on 18 December 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2992-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.